Youth Policy Navigator

Remember user profile

remember_user_profile

Store user details like age, region, income, employment, or education to personalize policy eligibility checks later.

Instructions

Youth Policy Navigator(청년 정책 내비게이터): remember a user's situation or preference for later personalization and eligibility judging (e.g. '나이 27', '서울 거주', '연소득 2800만원', '구직 중', '대학 졸업'). Pass a stable per-user identifier as user_key that YOU control, and a short note. Call this whenever the user reveals a durable fact about their age, region, income, employment or education, so a later check_eligibility can restore and use it.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "user_key": "<user_key>",
      "note": "<note>"
    },
    "name": "remember_user_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	Yes
`user_key`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive. The description adds context: data is for eligibility judging, user_key must be stable and agent-controlled. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is 3-4 sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Minor redundancy with Korean translation in parentheses, but overall concise and scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given presence of output schema (not shown) and annotations, description adequately covers usage context, parameter guidance, and relationship to sibling tool check_eligibility. Missing error handling but sufficient for a simple storage tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, but description explains 'note' as a short note with examples and 'user_key' as a stable per-user identifier that the agent controls. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's string type.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool stores user's durable facts (age, region, income, etc.) for later personalization and eligibility checking. It distinguishes from sibling 'recall_user_profile' by focusing on remembering, not retrieving.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states 'Call this whenever the user reveals a durable fact about their age, region, income, employment or education'. Indicates use case and connection to check_eligibility, providing clear when-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server